On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > Steve Peters wrote: > > > > > > Why define a method to return a negative value ? DONT_CLONE() that returns > > > true seems more logical. > > > > The only problem with DONT_CLONE() is the old issue with negative logic > > functions (i.e. return true when false). Thinking in double negatives > > is usually confusing, so if we can avoid it, that would be best. > > That's exactly the point that bothers me, but apparently I'm bothered by > the opposite thing as you, so avoid speaking about "intuitive api" in > this thread :) > > Not having a function FOO and having a function FOO that returns 0 / "" > / undef is close. Thus the verb FOO should reflect a setting which is > _not_ the default -- as we force to define the FOO method to have it > return 1 (or another true value). > > But not avoiding a double negative when you can do it is not good :) > so names like PREVENT_CLONE or BLOCK_CLONE or ABORT_CLONE might be > better.
I just wanted to avoid code like "not DONT_CLONE()" which is bound to cause problems, at least for me :). I agree that PREVENT_CLONE() would be a much better alternative. Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
